Thread: Vikings versus Saints

locuomotion wrote:

I agree that we dominated that game in every aspect except turnovers. But the turnovers have to be factored in since they made such a huge impact on the game. I hope we win by more than a touchdown, I just see it being a close game again.

In a way I agree. The Saints defense was an opportunistic defense - that was their game plan all year long, so I credit them in creating some of the turnovers.

On the other side I also think that some of the turnovers were the result of mistakes on our part, and not anything the Saints defense did.

Turnovers are a part of the game, and should always be factored in. However, the odds of the Vikings ever having that kind of turnover game are pretty low. I think if that game was played 100 times, the Vikings would have won it 90+ times. And I think everyone - fans, Vikings, and Saints - know it.

That is why I said earlier that the Saints have more to prove than the Vikings. They might be the reigning champs, but a loss to open the season and they will be considered the "lucky" champs all season long, while the Vikings will always be considered the better team.

The Saints came up with a defensive game plan of "KILL FAVRE" and take the ball away. It worked because the Vikes let it happen.

What the Saints were not counting on is how the Vikes D stopped their high powered offense. The most telling stat is NO's 3rd down conversion rate of ONLY 25%, yes only 3 out of 12. If it wasn't for the short fields because of TO's, the Vikes would have stopped them time after time. Vikes 3rd down conversion rate was 58% 7 out of 12.

The adjustments to the Vikes game plan of protecting Favre better with a healthy Herrera and experienced C and ROT and having better ball security is much easier than the Saints.

Who couldn't do anything against the Vikes D, either passing or running.

The starter for the year will be a boring game as the Vikes take a 20 to 3 lead in the first half. What's good is TJ will get some reps in the 4th with a 41 to 10 lead.

I've already pointed out how we could have easily won that game 41-18 if we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot time after time. I'm going to expect the same week 1, just without the mistakes.

NodakPaul wrote:

locuomotion wrote:

I agree that we dominated that game in every aspect except turnovers. But the turnovers have to be factored in since they made such a huge impact on the game. I hope we win by more than a touchdown, I just see it being a close game again.

In a way I agree. The Saints defense was an opportunistic defense - that was their game plan all year long, so I credit them in creating some of the turnovers.

On the other side I also think that some of the turnovers were the result of mistakes on our part, and not anything the Saints defense did.

Turnovers are a part of the game, and should always be factored in. However, the odds of the Vikings ever having that kind of turnover game are pretty low. I think if that game was played 100 times, the Vikings would have won it 90+ times. And I think everyone - fans, Vikings, and Saints - know it.

That is why I said earlier that the Saints have more to prove than the Vikings. They might be the reigning champs, but a loss to open the season and they will be considered the "lucky" champs all season long, while the Vikings will always be considered the better team.

Your whole theory just screams sour grapes. They won, nothing will change that.
This is a new season, last season has no bearing on this season. This season has no bearing on last season.

I for one would be very suprised if Brees completes only 54% of his passes for under 200 yards again. Or that we hold there run game to under 3yards per carry.
Our defense is good, but not that good(same for our offense).

The turnovers were not the only anomaly in that game.

jmcdon00 wrote:
[quote]NodakPaul wrote:
[quote]locuomotion wrote:

They might be the reigning champs, but a loss to open the season and they will be considered the "lucky" champs all season long, while the Vikings will always be considered the better team.

I sure wish the Vikings would be considered the "Lucky" champs at least once in my lifetime. ANY type of superbowl champ.
It's a 16 game season. The Saints losing the 1st game will do NOTHING to make the Saints and their fans feel less about the 2009 season. It won't make me feel any better about the Vikings 2009 season,either. Turnovers do count.Shoulda,woulda,coulda.

jmcdon00 wrote:

NodakPaul wrote:

locuomotion wrote:

I agree that we dominated that game in every aspect except turnovers. But the turnovers have to be factored in since they made such a huge impact on the game. I hope we win by more than a touchdown, I just see it being a close game again.

In a way I agree. The Saints defense was an opportunistic defense - that was their game plan all year long, so I credit them in creating some of the turnovers.

On the other side I also think that some of the turnovers were the result of mistakes on our part, and not anything the Saints defense did.

Turnovers are a part of the game, and should always be factored in. However, the odds of the Vikings ever having that kind of turnover game are pretty low. I think if that game was played 100 times, the Vikings would have won it 90+ times. And I think everyone - fans, Vikings, and Saints - know it.

That is why I said earlier that the Saints have more to prove than the Vikings. They might be the reigning champs, but a loss to open the season and they will be considered the "lucky" champs all season long, while the Vikings will always be considered the better team.

Your whole theory just screams sour grapes. They won, nothing will change that.
This is a new season, last season has no bearing on this season. This season has no bearing on last season.

I for one would be very suprised if Brees completes only 54% of his passes for under 200 yards again. Or that we hold there run game to under 3yards per carry.
Our defense is good, but not that good(same for our offense).

The turnovers were not the only anomaly in that game.

Sour Grapes my ass. I have been of the opinion since the end of that game that we didn't deserve to win playing like we did that night. I also have been of the opinion that we were the better team. The better team doesn't always win, that is why it is an exciting game.

A first week loss would absolutely have an effect on the players and fans. More so than a loss would to the Vikings IMHO.

As far as the only anomoly, our defensive stats were right in line with where they were all season long. As were our offensive stats. The biggest sole anomoly was the turnovers, and THAT was the deciding factor in the game.

kalamazooer10 wrote:

Turnovers do count.Shoulda,woulda,coulda.

Are you quoting me? Because I have never said anything about this game changing anything about the the 2009 season. Of course turnovers count. We lost the NFC Championship because of turnovers.

In the first game of the season, I don't think we will commit that many turnovers. And that is one of the big reasons I think we will win.

There is a saying, "better to be lucky than good." From my perspective, though I wouldn't mind a bit more luck, I'd still rather that the Vikings be good. Good earns you respect, whereas luck does not. In the end, luck runs out.

Viking win, 34-21.

The Saints were not lucky...they were good. From my perspective on the couch, it looked like they had a gameplan going into the NFC Championship that centered around harassing Favre all...game...long, and focusing not so much on tackling Peterson, as going after the ball when he was carrying it.

It's not luck when you attack your opponent's weaknesses and capitalize on their mistakes...it's just good strategy.

As for who will benefit most from a victory in the season opener? As Madden would say, "The team who wins will be 1-0, and the team who loses will be 0-1, regardless of who they are". Not too tough to figure out. Psychologically speaking, I think the Vikes may have something to prove to themselves, more than the Saints do. The Saints won the SuperBowl by being the superior team, through talent on the field, coaching, and preparation...plain and simple. They're the defending champions. Losing the season opener to the team they knocked out of the playoffs last year won't cause them to give back the Lombardi trophy, or create a do-over SuperBowl between the Vikes and Colts. It hurts me to type that, but it's the stone cold truth.

Best thing the Vikes can do, is play their asses off this year, get back to the NFC Championship game, WIN it this time, and THEN get their own Lombardi. Then we, as fans, can sit back and laugh at the fans of the team our guys beat when they're debating about luck and who was the better team.

JMO

ndnorseman wrote:

The Saints were not lucky...they were good. From my perspective on the couch, it looked like they had a gameplan going into the NFC Championship that centered around harassing Favre all...game...long, and focusing not so much on tackling Peterson, as going after the ball when he was carrying it.

It's not luck when you attack your opponent's weaknesses and capitalize on their mistakes...it's just good strategy.

As for who will benefit most from a victory in the season opener? As Madden would say, "The team who wins will be 1-0, and the team who loses will be 0-1, regardless of who they are". Not too tough to figure out. Psychologically speaking, I think the Vikes may have something to prove to themselves, more than the Saints do. The Saints won the SuperBowl by being the superior team, through talent on the field, coaching, and preparation...plain and simple. They're the defending champions. Losing the season opener to the team they knocked out of the playoffs last year won't cause them to give back the Lombardi trophy, or create a do-over SuperBowl between the Vikes and Colts. It hurts me to type that, but it's the stone cold truth.

Best thing the Vikes can do, is play their asses off this year, get back to the NFC Championship game, WIN it this time, and THEN get their own Lombardi. Then we, as fans, can sit back and laugh at the fans of the team our guys beat when they're debating about luck and who was the better team.

JMO

Yup. The better team was the team that won since that is the only stat that counts.
No awards for the 'apparent' better team.
Good thing too. Because the award would be called the choke award and the Vikings would already have a couple of those trophies.

I love the Vikings.
But until they win it all, they will always be characterized by their ability to fall short.

If they move the team before they win a superbowl, history won't likely be kind to them in their Minnesota days.

It's time to win, NOW!

And it starts with the Saints.